化学发光微粒子免疫法和梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验检测梅毒抗体的比较  

Comparision of CMIA and TPPA in detecting antibody of Treponema pallidum

作　　者：张东梅[1] 徐韫健[1] 张婷[1] 

机构地区：[1]广州医学院第一附属医院检验科,广东广州510120

出　　处：《中国微生态学杂志》2013年第10期1212-1214,共3页Chinese Journal of Microecology

摘　　要：目的评价化学发光微粒子免疫法（chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay, CMIA）检测临床血清标本梅毒螺旋体抗体的敏感性和特异性。方法用梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验（TVeponema Pallidum particie agglutination test，TPPA）法作为对照标准，采用CMIA法检测2012年11月到12月1200例住院患者的血清标本，并用卡方检验评价两种检测方法对同一个样本的化验结果的一致性。结果1200例血清标本中用CMIA法检出阳性率为11.3%，TPPA法检出阳性率为10. 9% ,以TPPA为标准，CMIA法敏感性为96. 9%，特异性为99. 2%，其中CMIA法检测血清S/CO值〉 4. 00的110例，用TPPA确认107例阳性，阳性预测值（PPV）为97.3%;CMIA法S/C0值在1.0-9.0,TPPA可出现阴性结果。结论CMIA法可替代TPPA法进行梅毒螺旋体抗体检测，对于CMIA法检测S/C0值1. 0-4.0的需进一步复检。Objective To study the sensitivity and specificity of chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay （ CMIA） in detecting Treponema pallidum antibodies in serum specimens. Methods With TPPA as a control standard, 1200 serum samples collected frominpatients at this hospital between August and December in 2012 were assayed by CMIA. Chisquare test was applied to evaluate the consistency of the two detection methods on the same specimen. Results In 1200 serum samples,the positive rate of CMIA and TPPA were11.3% and 10. 9%,respectively. With TPPA as the relative standard method, the sensitivity and specificity of CMIA were 96. 9% and99. 2%,respectively of 110 samples detected as S/CO 〉4. 00 by CMIA were diagnosed as positive by TPPA, suggesting appositive pre-dictive value （ PPV） of 97. 3% . When the positive results of S/CO vaiue 1.0 - 9. 0 in CMIA, TPPA could have negative results. Con-clusion CMIA can replace TPPA in detecting Treponema Pallidum antibody. However, the positive results of S/CO vaiuel, 0 -4.0 inCMIA need to be re-examined to ensure the accuracy of test results.

关 键 词：梅毒螺旋体 化学发光微粒子免疫法 梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验 一致性 

分 类 号：R759.1[医药卫生—皮肤病学与性病学]